Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I arrived at the following problem during the day. For $\iota\in I$, let $A_\iota\subseteq\mathbb R^d$ be non-empty and closed. For $\varepsilon>0$ let $B_\varepsilon(A_\iota)=\bigcup_{x\in A_\iota}B_\varepsilon(x).$ Do we have $$\bigcap_{\varepsilon>0}\bigcup_{\iota\in I}\overline{B_\varepsilon(A_\iota)}=\bigcup_{\iota\in I}A_\iota$$ and if not, is there a chance that we have $$\bigcap_{\varepsilon>0}\overline{conv}\Bigl(\bigcup_{\iota\in I}\overline{B_\varepsilon(A_\iota)}\Bigr)=\overline{conv}\bigl(\bigcup_{\iota\in I}A_\iota\bigr)?$$

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

The first statement doesn't hold when $d=1$, $I=\Bbb N^*$, $A_{i}=\{i^{-1}\}$: $x$ is in the LHS but not in the RHS.

For the second statement, fix $\varepsilon>0$ and $x$ in the LHS. Then we can find an integer $N$ and $c_j\in [0,1],x_j\in\Bbb R^d,j\in [N]$ such that $\lVert x-\sum_{j=1}^Nc_jx_j\rVert<\varepsilon$, where $x_j\in\bigcup_{\iota\in I}\overline{B_{\varepsilon}(A_{\iota})}$ and $\sum_jc_j=1$. Now, let $i_j\in I$ and $y_j\in A_{i_j}$ such that $\lVert x_j-y_j\rVert<\varepsilon$. We have $$\lVert x-\sum_{j=1}^Nc_jy_j\rVert\leqslant 2\varepsilon,$$ and $\sum_{j=1}^Nc_jy_j\in \operatorname{conv}\bigcup_{\iota\in I}A_{\iota}$.

Note that we didn't use the fact that we work in $\Bbb R^d$ (we can replace it by any normed space), and that $A_i$ are closed.

share|cite|improve this answer

$A_\iota = \{\frac{1}{\iota}\}$ is a counterexample to the first statement ($I = \mathbb{N}$). For all $\epsilon > 0$, $0 \in \bigcup_{i\in I} \overline{B_\epsilon(A_\iota)}$, hence $0$ is a member of the left-hand side. Yet $0$ lies in none of the $A_\iota$, hence $0$ isn't a member of the right-hand side.

share|cite|improve this answer

Here is a more geometric argument for the second part:

Let $L = \cap_{\epsilon>0} \overline{\mathbb{co}}( \cup_{i \in I} \overline{B_\epsilon(A_i)})$, $R = \overline{\mathbb{co}} (\cup_{i \in I} A_i)$.

We want to show $L=R$.

For all $\epsilon >0$, we have $\cup_{i \in I} A_i \subset \cup_{i \in I} \overline{B_\epsilon(A_i)}$, hence $\overline{\mathbb{co}} (\cup_{i \in I} A_i)\subset \overline{\mathbb{co}}( \cup_{i \in I} \overline{B_\epsilon(A_i)})$, and since this is true for all $\epsilon>0$, we have $R \subset L$.

Now suppose $x_0\notin R$. Then $R$ and $\{x_0\}$ are closed, convex sets, so by the Hahn Banach theorem there is a linear functional $\phi$ that separates the sets, that is, there exists $\gamma_1, \gamma_2$ such that $\phi(x_0) < \gamma_1 < \gamma_2 < \phi(y)$ for all $y \in R$.

Now suppose $y \in B_\epsilon(A_i)$, then for some $a \in A_i$, we have $\|y-a\| < \epsilon$. Since $|\phi(y)-\phi(a)| \leq \|\phi\| \|y-a\| \leq \epsilon \|\phi\|$, we have $\phi(y) \geq \phi(a) - \epsilon \|\phi\|$. We can choose $\epsilon$ small enough so that $\phi(x_0) < \gamma_1 < \phi(y)$, for all $y \in B_\epsilon(A_i)$.

Note that the $\epsilon$ only depends on $\|\phi\|, \gamma_1$ and not on $i \in I$. Consequently, $B_\epsilon(A_i) \subset C = \phi^{-1}[\gamma_1,\infty)$ for all $i\in I$. Note that $C$ is a closed convex set, hence we have $\overline{B_\epsilon(A_i)} \subset C$ for all $i\in I$, and hence $\cup_{i \in I} \overline{B_\epsilon(A_i)} \subset C$, and again, since $C$ is closed and convex, we have $\overline{\mathbb{co}}( \cup_{i \in I} \overline{B_\epsilon(A_i)}) \subset C$, from which it follows that $L \subset C$. Since $\phi(x_0) < \gamma_1$, it follows that $x_0 \notin L$. Hence $L \subset R$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.